Originally posted by zerbot565
how hard can it be to disguise the thermite rigging with cat 5 cable or any other communications cable ,
which runs throu the inner hollow core , ..

Until, of course some comm tech hooks up a new client and tries to meter the cable and wonders why he is getting no signal on all the miles of cat 5
cable. Also, what happens when they decide to modernize and start replacing all the cat 5e with FOC?

Originally posted by zerbot565
how hard can it be to disguise the thermite rigging with cat 5 cable or any other communications cable ,
which runs throu the inner hollow core , ..

Until, of course some comm tech hooks up a new client and tries to meter the cable and wonders why he is getting no signal on all the miles of cat 5
cable. Also, what happens when they decide to modernize and start replacing all the cat 5e with FOC?

Originally posted by zerbot565
how hard can it be to disguise the thermite rigging with cat 5 cable or any other communications cable ,
which runs throu the inner hollow core , ..

Until, of course some comm tech hooks up a new client and tries to meter the cable and wonders why he is getting no signal on all the miles of cat 5
cable. Also, what happens when they decide to modernize and start replacing all the cat 5e with FOC?

who was in charge of the communications ?

George Bush. Who do you think? A varitey of persons over a number of years, not to mention that each leasee would also be in charge of their own IT.

Sorry, no matter how you spin it, there's no way you could hide any kind of det cable or leads for decades in the buildings without someone stumbling
upon it. Of all the systems in a building, sewer, water, HVAC - the comm and elec systems are the ones that are most likely subject to constant
change as clients move out and new clients move in, each with thier own particluar demands.

Shame On Jesse Ventura!
...
Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One
World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building [WTC7]
– since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law
enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no
conspiracy.

This is "very interesting" considering the years-long debate over what Larry meant when he said this:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and
I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the
building collapse."

For years trusters have cried, "He must have meant pull all the firefighters out of or away from the building!" even though WTC7's fires were not
being fought, and trusters often cite that fact themselves.

Well now according to someone else, in much more explicit words than "pull it," Larry was apparently lobbying for a controlled demolition to take
place that day. Somehow.

What is the significance of an independent person in a Fox News article verifying that Larry Silverstein in fact had an interest in demolishing the
building that day? And how could you deny immediately thinking of his infamous "pull it" quote as this has been revealed?

I suppose the predictable answers from trusters would be "there is no significance," and "move along, there is nothing to see here."

The puzzle pieces are coming together and falls inline with what the 1st post of this tread claims.

This is a valid angle from an insurance perspective, and obviously would be top secret...

Would you want to work in a building rigged to explode, hell no.

Would you want to insure a building next to the twin towers without some assurance your building wouldn't be wiped out if one of those towers fell
uncontrollably? I wouldn't. So either the buildings were built sturdy enough that an insurance company would consider it a safe bet, or they'd
have a fail safe installed, especially after '93.

I can see them building in explosives, but I don't know the shelf life of the stuff..I can also see building them with easy access to the places that
explosives would need to be installed for demolition.

As I posted in the other thread. I had considered this, as in, maybe they could do something like this for all tall buildings in case there was a
danger they would fall across a city.
It just doesn't make sense though. It would make it so much easier for a terrorist to attack simply by hijacking the detonation.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
As I posted in the other thread. I had considered this, as in, maybe they could do something like this for all tall buildings in case there was a
danger they would fall across a city.
It just doesn't make sense though. It would make it so much easier for a terrorist to attack simply by hijacking the detonation.

I added the mystery reason as to why in an edit to the opening of my original thread, think it's a plausible scenario.

ANd all the info from this thread supports it.

Was ust a mishap of time and events and human endeavors to stop disasters

Nice try except the problem is that the buildings were not about to fall and the engineers knew it was impossible for the buildings to fall
from planes or fires etc....

It cracks me up this is like the murderer who keeps changing his story to try and fit the circumstances. TPTB must be running scared since the OS has
been so thoroughly destroyed and 70% of Americans know it is BS....

Oh, don't get me wrong. Though I don't see it as a realistic scenario I applaud both of you guys for thinking. Keep it up, original thought is what
keeps me coming to ATS, not posts that are just links to stories I can read elsewhere or links to youtube vids.

Wow the OS is getting extremely desparate to come up with some reason why the buildings might have been pre rigged with explosives....how
disgusting....and this also explains building 7 too then does it....and i am sure the blindly following OSer's are actually believeing this line of
bull doogy.....I mean really now....If you OSer's have any...one little bit of self dignity.....stick to your original theory because if you now try
to peddle off this hogwash you have absolutely zero zilch nada self respect for and you all deserve to take up residence in the FEMA camps so that you
can sit there for the rest of your lives and contemplate how fooled you really are.

heck...lets go about rigging all buildings with explosives...you know for health and saftey sake.....Unbelievable....saftey precaution...yes to rig a
building with explosives that deteriorate over time and become even more volitile for you...the publics safety.....

Well if one...even one of the regular debunkers comtemplates this as being reasonable you should hang your heads in shame right now.....

they where batteling the asbestes removal bill in court ,
in the long run the bill for removing of the asbestes would have bankrupted the port authority

in addition to the pre rigging after 93 all they now needed was a "natural" event , an excuse to use em ,

in the long run it was cheeper this way ,
NY gets a new set of towers that are enviromentaly "friendly"
big pharma gets a coulpe of million new customers
people in power stay in power
sheeple stay sheeple
nothing ever changed and in 30 years no one will even remember wtc 7

No, absolutely no one would pre rig a building with explosives without nefarious intentions and allow the public to enter then....wether you heard it
or not....if it is the case then the end plan was 911...simple as that...Unbelievable,

:note: if this is the case then the OSer's should be thanking the truthers as we have been absolutely correct when we say explosives brought down the
towers.......so i guess the OS was lie....so if this is the road the OS takes i think you should consider listening to the rest of the truthers when
we say what the real purpose is.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.